• venusaur@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    27
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    6 months ago

    It’s because the leaders aren’t the ones fighting the battles or being targeted. They’re playing chess somewhere far from the violence.

    • hungryphrog@lemmy.blahaj.zone
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      7
      arrow-down
      2
      ·
      6 months ago

      We should just solve conflicts by throwing the presidents or monarchs of the opposing countries in an arena to fight to death.

      • power@lemmy.blahaj.zone
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        14
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        I think it’d be better if we disregarded highly authoritarian leaders in general and embraced socialism. Back in the day, kings and emperors fought their battles, but it didn’t make their feudalism any less… feudal.

        • lud
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          6 months ago

          Unfortunately humans are greedy so that won’t ever happen.

          • jorp@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            6 months ago

            Humans cooperated and formed large confederations long before capitalism and liberalism were ideas.

            It’s true that unequal and selfish organisations have often consolidated power and squashed other organisations but we’ve also seen humanity going the opposite way many times before.

            To shrug our shoulders and say humans are inherently greedy so socialism can’t work is a cop out. We’ve dismantled unequal power structures many times before and we can do it again

      • lightnegative@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        5
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        Let’s say your country was about to be invaded, your house stolen and you sent elsewhere or killed so that citizens of the invading country could occupy your house and your land instead.

        And all of that not happening was hinged on the physical prowess of an old guy who’s probably been in politics for decades.

        How helpless would you feel?

      • samus12345@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        4
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        6 months ago

        [T]he ministers and generals of the two countries, dressed in bathing-drawers and armed with clubs, can have it out among themselves. Whoever survives, his country wins. That would be much simpler and more just than this arrangement, where the wrong people do the fighting.

        - Kat, All Quiet on the Western Front

        • fuckingkangaroos
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          6 months ago

          "Sorry ole chap, turns out all those cigars didn’t do Churchill any favors. Hitler took him out in under a minute.

          Anyway, we heard you’re gay, so here’s a bullet in your ear."

      • venusaur@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        6 months ago

        That would be interesting. We’d definitely have to shift who we elect towards more violent leaders tho, and idk how I feel about that haha.